Gerard v. Ives

• Citation: 62 A. 607,78 Conn. 485
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 04 January 1906
• Parties: GERARD v. IVES et al.

62 A. 607

78 Conn. 485

GERARD

v. IVES et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 4, 1906.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.

Suit by George L. Gerard against Marie E. Ives, as administrator, and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

William B. Stoddard and John K. Beach, for appellant Harrison Hewitt, for appellees.

TORRANCE, C. J. The contest in this case relates to the ownership of a lot of land in New Haven, fronting on Chapel street. The plaintiff is the son of Eunice Louise Beecher, and he claimed in effect that under the will of his mother's aunt, Sarah L. Maltby, the life use of said land was given to his mother, and the remainder in fee to himself. The defendants claim (1) that the clause of said will purporting to dispose of said land to the plaintiff and his mother is void as to him; (2) that consequently he has no interest of any kind in said land; and (3) that whatever interest his mother had therein now belongs to the defendants, under the decision of this court in the case of Ives v. Beecher, 75 Conn. 564, 54 Atl. 207. The plaintiff also claims that, if he has no interest in said land under said will, he has such an interest under the distribution of Mrs. Maltby's estate, and the facts found with reference to the acts and conduct of the distributees thereunder.

The complaint was brought under the provisions of the statute (Gen. St. 1902, § 4053) relating to actions to settle the title to land, and one of the prayers for relief is for a judgment that the plaintiff is the owner in fee of said land, subject to his mother's life use. The court held upon the facts found that the plaintiff had no interest in said land, and rendered judgment to that effect; and whether it erred in so doing is the general question in the case. The following is a somewhat condensed statement of the facts found: Mrs. Maltby died in 1871, and her will was probated in October of that year. At the time of her death she owned the land here in question. Her sole heir at law was her sister, Mrs. Garfield, who died intestate in March, 1872, before Mrs. Maltby's estate was distributed. Mrs. Garfield's heirs at law were Nathaniel and John, her sons, Mrs. Beecher, a daughter, and Josephine L. Hazelton Hill, a child of a deceased daughter. In May, 1872, the estate of Mrs. Maltby was settled and distributed. That part of the will of Mrs. Maltby under which the plaintiff claims title reads as follows: "All the real estate that I inherited from my late father, Nathaniel Lyon, I give, devise, and bequeath as follows, to wit: * * * one-fourth part to Henry White, Esq., of New Haven, in trust and confidence that he will annually pay over the rents, issues, interest, and profits thereof to Eunice Louise Beecher, wife of George H. Beecher, my niece, during her natural life; and then and after her decease I give, devise, and bequeath the said fourth part to her lawful heirs forever." That part of the distribution of the estate of Mrs. Maltby that is claimed to have some bearing upon the questions involved in this case reads as follows: "We have set to Henry White, in trust for Eunice Louise Beecher, * * * during her life, and after her decease to her heirs," certain property described in the distribution, including the land in question.

In making said distribution, the distributors consulted with Nathaniel Garfield and Mrs. Beecher, and endeavored to set out to the distributees such parcels of the estate as would be satisfactory to them, and no appeal was taken from the distribution. "There was no discussion between the distributors and distributees as to the form of said distribution, or of the ultimate effect of the language of the will and of the distribution upon the course of title to the land in question, and such distributors and distributees all endeavored and intended to carry the provisions of the will of Sarah L. Maltby into effect in accordance with the terms thereof, and substantially in the language of the will. There was no agreement, consent, or understanding by the parties interested in said distribution that the plaintiff should by said distribution take any interest in the estate of said Sarah L. Maltby, or in any of the property of said estate, except such interest as he might take by virtue of the will of said Sarah Lyon Maltby at the expiration of the life estate of his mother, should he survive her." Mrs. Beecher is now over 80 years old, and the plaintiff, her son by a deceased husband, and the only child she ever had, is now about 64 years old. When Mrs. Maltby's will was executed in 1853, the plaintiff was about 13 years old, and his mother was then about 34 years old, and married to her present husband. Mrs. Beecher and the plaintiff have always supposed and claimed that she had only a life estate in the land in question, and that he owned the remainder in fee, and none of the other devisees under the Maltby will, and none of the legal representatives of Mrs. Garfield, ever claimed any interest in said land, or that it belonged to the estate of Mrs. Garfield. In February, 1873, Henry White executed a lease of the land in question to Mrs. Beecher and her husband, and immediately thereafter Mrs. Beecher and the plaintiff took possession of said land, and neither White nor his successors in said trust have since then ever had actual possession or charge of said property. For more than 20 years the plaintiff, as agent of his mother in the management of her life interest, has been in possession of said land, and during that time Mrs. Beecher, at her own expense, erected a valuable brick building upon said land. "The said Sarah L. Maltby for many years prior to her death often met this plaintiff, and they were upon very friendly terms, and she told this plaintiff that she had provided by her will that this plaintiff's mother, the said E. Louise Beecher, was simply to have a life estate in...